Friday, January 29, 2021

How and Why Joe Biden Opposes Patriotic Education - Eileen F. Toplansky


​ by Eileen F. Toplansky

For the president of the USA to act and think this way spells an ugly chapter for America.

Of all the executive orders that newly elected Joe Biden swiftly enacted,  nothing is more indicative of his anti-American animus and radical left-wing influence than his revoking Trump's "1776 Commission" to promote "patriotic education." 

The 1776 Commission to Create a Patriotic History Curriculum is in direct contrast to the "1619 Project," which reflects a decidedly  anti-American, factually incorrect, and blatantly biased program currently being pushed through the U.S. education system.

The mission of the 1776 Commission is "to defend the legacy of America's founding, the virtue of America's heroes, and the nobility of the American character."  But the left continues the mendacious onslaught of falsehoods about America.

Considering the people Biden is choosing to assist him, this move should come as no surprise.

After all, Susan Rice, his incoming domestic policy adviser, views America as a racist nation.  In fact:

[I]n 1986 she wrote an 86-page book titled A History Deferred, which claimed that because most U.S. students were 'taught American history, literature, art, drama, and music largely from a white, western European perspective, their grasp of the truth, of reality, is tainted by a myopia of sorts.'  Hence, '[t]he greatest evil in omitting or misrepresenting Black history, literature, and culture in elementary or secondary education is the unmistakable message it sends to the black child,' Rice elaborated.  'The message is 'your history, your culture, your language and your literature are insignificant.  And so are you.'

Susan Rice's presence indicates that we are headed for Obama's third term with Biden as a mere figurehead.

In truth, the "1619 Project rewrites American history to teach our children that we were founded on the principle of oppression, not freedom.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  America's founding set in motion the unstoppable chain of events that abolished slavery, secured civil rights, defeated communism and fascism, and built the most fair, equal and prosperous nation in human history."

That an American president would find it palatable to replace American history with a blatantly "leftist warped, distorted and deceptive one" is a frightening portent.

Other radical left-wingers include secretary of defense nominee Lloyd Austin, who said that if he is confirmed, he will "rid our ranks of racists and extremists."  By "racists and extremists," he is referring to white male Trump supporters.

And for the first time in our lives, free speech is about to be criminalized — the ultimate leftist dream come true.

All of Biden's edicts flow from this abhorrence of American ideas.  Clearly, his actions are meant to efface every MAGA achievement by President Trump.  Biden is quite willing and eager to rob Americans of their birthright.

In his final speech, President Trump asserted that

Now, as I leave the White House, I have been reflecting on the dangers that threaten the priceless inheritance we all share.  As the world's most powerful nation, America faces constant threats and challenges from abroad.  But the greatest danger we face is a loss of confidence in ourselves, a loss of confidence in our national greatness.  A nation is only as strong as its spirit.  We are only as dynamic as our pride.  We are only as vibrant as the faith that beats in the hearts of our people.  No nation can long thrive that loses faith in its own values, history, and heroes, for these are the very sources of our unity and our vitality.

At the center of this heritage is also a robust belief in free expression, free speech, and open debate.  Only if we forget who we are and how we got here could we ever allow political censorship and blacklisting to take place in America.  It's not even thinkable.  Shutting down free and open debate violates our core values and most enduring traditions.

These ideas stand in utter contrast to the left/Marxist/communist ideology, which is all about identity politics, not liberty and justice.  Government by consent is an anathema to the totalitarian left.

Indeed, "[f]or far too long American students ... have been taught to consider America to be a hateful, racist country instead of a republic [which is] a government ... designed to be directed by the will of the people rather than the wishes of a single individual or a narrow class of elites."  Elites like these, perhaps?

Moreover, Biden is on board for the diversity and equity theories of the left.  But the 1776 Report clearly states that "by dividing Americans into oppressed and oppressor groups, activists of identity politics propose to punish some citizens ... while rewarding others.  This new system denies that human beings are endowed with the same rights and creates new hierarchies with destructive assumptions and practices.  Members of oppressed groups are told to abandon their shared civic identity as Americans and think of themselves in terms of their sexual or racial status."  Such "diversity training programs which are based on identity politics often use a person's race to degrade or ostracize him or her."

Nonetheless, Biden's "cabinet nominees, whether in health, finance, environmental policy, or education, have declared that eradicating systemic racism is their top priority.  How this agenda will play out has already been adumbrated in the CDC's initial priority list for Covid vaccinations: hold off on vaccinating the elderly, despite their higher risk levels, because the elderly are disproportionately white.  Racial quotas will become even more the order of the day than now.  The diversity obsessives in the federal science bureaucracies ... will now redouble their efforts to treat a researcher's race and sex as scientific qualifications in the awarding of federal research grants. Expect to see any mention of merit or excellence denounced as a form of bigotry[.]"

The charge about systemic racism is standard leftist offal.  It flies in the face of the fact that  "Kamala Harris is not only our first female vice president but also the first Democratic vice president who is a person of color."  Thus, "her charge of  'systemic racism' would make it impossible for her to discharge the duties of her office because she would not be eligible to vote or serve in public office if it were true."  Moreover, "systemic racism would require the interposition and nullification of the 15th and 19th Amendments to the Constitution [but] these facts do not matter."

Because so many Americans are unschooled concerning the major foundational American ideas, they fail to see that "the degradations of individuals on the basis of race expose the lie that identity politics promotes the equal protection of rights."  In essence, "identity politics denies the fundamental tenet of the Declaration of Independence, that human beings are equal by nature."

So what exactly would newly elected President Biden find problematic or offensive with the 1776 Project?  It does not align with his values or the beliefs of his radical leftist allies. 

In the past 50 years, leftists have taken over the schools, and the endgame is a total transformation of this country.  The puppet-master Obama said as much.  Never forget that the left is hell-bent on destroying the nuclear family and making government the "parent."  We are about to see "a great socialist/Marxist reset in America in which these things will be brought to bear upon us by a radicalized leftist Democrat party.  Globalism will be implemented by almost imperceptible increments."

If we continue "to fail to educate American youth about effective, representative, and limited government, the rule of law and the security of civil rights and private property" as well as a "love of the natural world and the arts, good character and religious faith" we will no longer be the "shining city on the hill" and that will be a tragedy of epic proportions.

If we do not "instill the beauty and glory of American identity," as President Trump explained, we are, indeed, in dire danger of losing who we are to the poisonous ideology that rules the leftist mind.  Clearly, Biden is delighted with that possibility.

Eileen can be reached at

Image: Gage Skidmore via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0.


Eileen F. Toplansky  


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Dangers of Lifting Sanctions on the Islamic Regime of Iran - Arvin Khoshnood


​ by Arvin Khoshnood

Now that Trump has left the scene and Joe Biden has been installed in the White House, there is a new possibility that the US will lift  sanctions.

BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 1,907, January 28, 2020

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Now that President Biden has been installed in the White House, the Islamic regime in Iran is hopeful that US sanctions on the country will soon be lifted. Lifting the sanctions, however, would tighten the regime’s grip on the Iranian people and provide a boost to its destabilizing operations across the Middle East. Biden must consider these issues before making a decision on rejoining the 2015 nuclear deal.

In 2018, President Donald Trump announced that the US was withdrawing from the 2015 JCPOA nuclear deal with the Islamic regime in Iran and reintroducing strict sanctions on the regime. Now that Trump has left the scene and Joe Biden has been installed in the White House, there is a new possibility that the US will lift those sanctions.

When President Barack Obama negotiated the JCPOA with the Islamic regime, his VP was Joe Biden. Resuscitating the nuclear deal is thus one of Biden’s foremost foreign policy ambitions. In an op-ed published by CNN on September 13, 2020, he wrote that the US would rejoin the JCPOA “if Iran returns to strict compliance with the nuclear deal.” On January 22, 2021, the regime’s FM, Muhammad Javad Zarif, responded that the Islamic regime in Iran is also prepared to rejoin the deal.

Before making any decisions, President Biden must consider the negative effects of the deal on the Iranian people and the stability of the Middle East.

Criticism of the sanctions

When US sanctions were reintroduced in 2018, many commentators criticized the move and encouraged Washington to deal with the regime instead. Peter Beinart wrote, “Sanctions don’t just help despotic regimes tighten their grip. They erode the habits and capacities necessary to sustain liberal democracy over the long term.” Jason Rezaian, writing at the Washington Post, claimed, “When people are squeezed economically, their needs and aspirations become much more about survival than about working toward change.”

Referencing the economic challenges faced by Iran amid the COVID-19 pandemic, Mohsen Tavakol at the Atlantic Council wrote, “Whatever sanctions on Iran were intended to accomplish, they will always directly make ordinary people pay the heaviest price.” Former regime ambassador Seyed Hossein Mousavian made similar statements in an article for Aljazeera, writing that the coronavirus has “made the inhumane and unjust sanctions the US has imposed on Iran deadlier than ever.”

The sanctions were also criticized for not being able to stop the regime’s nuclear program. Foreign Policy’s Colum Lynch reported in May 2020 that the Islamic regime, two years after the reintroduction of the sanctions, had halved “the time it would need to produce enough weapons-grade fuel to build a nuclear bomb.” Eric Brewer at the Center for Strategic and International Studies made a similar point, writing that a deal with the regime “presents the best chance of preventing an Iranian bomb.”

These claims are totally misconceived, as they are based on two invalid and misleading assumptions about the Iranian regime.

Assumption 1: The Iranian regime is benevolent toward the people it rules, and trade with the regime will result in a growing economy that would benefit the people and promote democracy

This assumption depends on a gross misrepresentation of the Iranian regime. The regime is totalitarian and has no regard for the welfare of the Iranian people.

The view also hinges on the idea that international trade promotes democracy, a premise I disproved in the case of Iran (from 1980 to 2006) in a Swedish research article from 2010.

International trade promotes democracy only when the wealth generated by trade benefits the people and contributes to a growing independent middle class. This has not happened in Iran since the revolutionary regime took over in 1979.

While Iran’s purchasing power parity-adjusted gross national income per capita doubled between 1990 and 2017 (prior to the reintroduction of US sanctions in 2018), Iranians suffered widespread poverty during the period. Nor was there any significant indication of liberalization or democratization in the country. On the contrary: Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and his entourage used and continue to use repressive measures against the people on matters both public and private.

The incumbents have deliberately hindered the emergence of an independent middle class by extending their control over the economy. The resource distribution policy of the Islamic regime has resulted in the elite growing ever richer while talented citizens leave the country. Corruption, lack of rule of law, lack of transparency, and lack of will has impeded any attempt at economic and political reform. Millions of Iranians have become dependent on the regime for employment and the ability to sustain their families. Protesting against the regime will result in losing one’s job at best; at worst, it can result in being tortured and executed, as in the case of the young wrestler Navid Afkari.

It is also incorrect to claim that the sanctions prevented humanitarian aid from reaching Iran amid the spread of COVID-19. Humanitarian aid to Iran was exempted from the sanctions, and in March 2020 the US offered to help Iran fight the pandemic—an offer rejected by Khamenei. More recently, Khamenei banned the import of COVID-19 vaccines from the US and the UK and called French vaccines unreliable. He did this despite the catastrophic outcome of the pandemic in Iran, which, according to official data, has suffered more than 57,000 deaths. The real death toll is believed to be much higher.

The Islamic regime’s response to the COVID-19 virus has been too little too late. Alireza Zali, head of the COVID-19 task force in Tehran, warns that Iran will soon suffer a fourth wave of the coronavirus. Had the regime reacted sooner, been transparent about the virus, followed the recommendations of health experts, prohibited religious ceremonies, and seriously fought drug smuggling, the pandemic would not have hit Iran as severely as it has.

It is true that the sanctions made it difficult for banks to process financial aid transactions between Iran and other foreign nations, but blame for this should not be placed on the sanctions. The Islamic regime has long used its financial institutions for money laundering, embezzlement, and the sponsoring of terrorism, which has discouraged the world community from working with banks in Iran—especially when sanctions require closer scrutiny of the transactions. It was the inhumane actions of the Islamic regime, not the sanctions, that prevented humanitarian aid from reaching Iran.

Assumption 2: The Islamic regime is reliable and can be trusted

According to this way of thinking, if the JCPOA is brought back to life the regime will commit to its promises to refrain from producing a nuclear bomb and will respect international law. This assumption is both false and extremely naïve.

History has proven time and again that the Islamic regime in Iran cannot be trusted. It maintained a nuclear program in secret for years before it was exposed in 2002 by an opposition group. After that, the US and the EU (in various forms and constellations) made multiple attempts to get the regime to abandon its nuclear program, and several agreements were made. Every time, the regime took advantage of or violated those agreements.

After 10 years of unsuccessful efforts to find a diplomatic solution, the EU joined the US in 2012 and levied severe international sanctions on the Iranian regime. In 2015, the nuclear deal between Iran and P5+1 was signed and the sanctions were lifted—but the regime violated the deal and continued with its nuclear activities, its destabilization of the Middle East, and its violations of human rights in Iran.

Consider one further example of the untrustworthiness of the Iranian government: in January 2020, the regime shot down Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 and for a long time refused to accept any responsibility for the crime.

To all this should be added that trade with the regime will directly assist its efforts to strengthen its military and intelligence capabilities. This would not only have negative ramifications for the regime’s opposition and democracy promotion in Iran but would also have grave implications for prospects for peace and stability in the Middle East.

One of the first things students of political science learn is that economic power can swiftly be transformed into political and military power. Trading with Iran thus helps the regime strengthen and develop its repressive intelligence apparatus as well as its military capabilities both at home and abroad. Sanctions, on the other hand, force the regime to reduce its defense budget, as shown by the US Institute of Peace and by Sajjad F. Dizaji and Mohammad R. Farzanegan.

The regime’s destabilizing actions in the Middle East, which have continued despite the sanctions, are well known and well documented. Surely, with the economic and political leeway the nuclear deal (or similar deals) would provide the regime, its operations in the region will increase in number and grow more complex and disruptive. It will also help the regime invest more on its pursuit of a nuclear bomb. If the Islamic regime was able to halve the time it would need to produce enough weapons-grade fuel for a nuclear bomb even with the sanctions in place, imagine what it will be able to do once the sanctions are lifted.

Biden must decide whom he supports in Iran

The regime’s suppression of democracy and disrespect for other countries’ sovereignty has placed the Iranian people in a perpetual state of economic crisis, and now also a severe health crisis. The sanctions cannot and should not be blamed for the arbitrariness and indifference of the regime. For more than 40 years, the country’s Islamic rulers have deliberately ignored the needs of the Iranian people, and trade and political relations have neither changed their behavior nor promoted democracy in Iran.

In addition, considering the regime’s lack of transparency, support for terrorism, corruption, and human rights violations, it is undeniable that lifting the sanctions will not improve the lives of ordinary Iranians. Trade with the regime would instead delay their attempts to oust the tyrants, thereby prolonging the suffering of the Iranian people.

It is true that the sanctions and Trump’s maximum pressure policy did not change the regime’s behavior, but it must be noted that real sanctions were introduced against the regime from mid-2012 to January 2016 and then again from November 2018. Over the course of the regime’s 41-year totalitarian reign, it has been exposed to serious sanctions for a total of around six years.

In other words, the regime has had the opportunity to trade almost freely with the world for more than 35 years with no change in its behavior—clear evidence that trade and diplomatic relations with the Islamic government do not work. Sanctions, on the other hand, if given more time, can have a real impact. A few years of sanctions forced the regime to decrease its defense budget. A longer period of sanctions could bring it to its knees.

Economic sanctions would force the regime to spend less on intelligence and security forces and curtail its opportunities to buy equipment for surveillance and repression. This would strengthen the Iranian people and give them a real chance of ridding themselves of their oppressors by their own hands and according to their own will.

At this crucial moment, when all eyes are on Washington, Joe Biden must make an important decision. Whom will he support—Iran’s people or Iran’s tyrants? Will the sanctions be lifted and the regime permitted to continue to violate human rights and international law, thus continuing to pose a threat to the free world, or will the sanctions remain in place to show tyrants all over the world that the US stands by humanitarian and democratic values?

View PDF


Arvin Khoshnood has extensively researched the Islamic regime’s domestic, foreign, and security policies, with a special focus on how the regime uses poverty as an instrument of domestic dominance. He holds degrees in political science, human geography, and intelligence analysis from Lund University in Sweden and is fluent in Persian. @arvinkhoshnood 


  Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

John Brennan's Dark Fantasies Become a Homeland Security Bulletin - Chris Farrell


​ by Chris Farrell

The Biden administration, its allies, advocates, and television sock puppets are advancing a Constitution-threatening series of initiatives disguised as "safety and security" measures.

  • Why did Brennan leave out communists?

  • We have every reason to suspect Schiff's motives and the law enforcement legitimacy of his proposal. Combined with Brennan's theories – this sort of thinking comprises the dark fantasies of people seeking to destroy liberty in the name of defending the Constitution.

  • The Biden administration, its allies, advocates, and television sock puppets are advancing a Constitution-threatening series of initiatives disguised as "safety and security" measures. This, combined with the Big Social Media-backed suppression of free speech, and not-so-subtle "shaming," are all aimed at crushing opposition and stopping people from questioning decisions, motives and authority. The pressure is palpable. Our liberties are in grave danger.

Pictured: Former CIA Director John Brennan. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

In a shocking moment of honesty and clarity, Obama CIA Director John Brennan gave the rest of America keen insight into The Washington DC Establishment's plans and actions for the Trumpsters and other "Deplorables" populating the land.

In an interview, Brennan lies and exaggerates to the public about a supposed domestic terrorist insurgency across the country that is gaining strength and threatening the republic. Brennan asserts that he knows that members of the Biden team:

"... are now moving in laser-like fashion to try to uncover as much as they can about what looks like insurgency movements that we've seen overseas, where they germinate in different parts of the country, and they gain strength, and it brings together an unholy alliance, frequently, religious extremists, authoritarians, fascists, bigots, racists, nativists, even libertarians. And, unfortunately, I think there has been this momentum that has been generated as a result of, unfortunately, the demagogic rhetoric of people that just departed government, but also those that continue in the halls of Congress. And, so, I really do think that law enforcement, homeland security, intelligence, and even defense officials are doing everything possible to root out what seems to be a very, very serious and insidious threat to our democracy and our republic."

How do libertarians and authoritarians fit in the same rhetorical political basket? Very tough to reconcile those positions, unless you really do not care about the "logic" of your assertion. Why did Brennan leave out communists? Brennan reportedly voted for Communist Party presidential candidate Gus Hall in 1976, while a student at Fordham University. What about Islamic supremacists? Why did Brennan leave them out of the "unholy alliance?"

Answer: Because it STILL is really all about Trump, Trumpism, and Trumpsters, and destroying any remnant of the MAGA movement. Anyone outside the Uniparty is suspect. In case you still do not get it yet – The Establishment holds staged Uniparty events like a solidarity and bipartisanship wreath-laying. Political cowards stage this sort of propagandistic thing at Arlington National Cemetery – using real heroes as props. It is not a pretty sight.

The proposed solution for the threat Brennan and The Establishment see is Rep. Adam Schiff's (D-CA) new domestic terrorism law proposal. Schiff, who cannot be trusted given his documented track record on his "proof" of President Trump's "collusion" with Russia, and his failed effort to impeach Trump out of the secretive meetings of the House Intelligence Committee, made the following statement in conjunction with his new proposed law:

"When violence fueled by homegrown, hateful ideology poses a more immediate threat to the safety and security of Americans on American soil than an international terrorist organization, it's time for our laws to catch up."

We have every reason to suspect Schiff's motives and the law enforcement legitimacy of his proposal. Combined with Brennan's theories – this sort of thinking comprises the dark fantasies of people seeking to destroy liberty in the name of defending the Constitution.

Thankfully, not everyone in Washington, DC is buying the nonsense. Former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) spoke intelligently in opposition to the Schiff, Brennan, and the "deprogramming Trumpsters" mania. Like Gabbard, there are some who have clearly articulated the truth: These overreactions are an unconstitutional over-reach that threaten our individual liberties

You will recall that Brennan once tweeted at President Trump:

"When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America... America will triumph over you."

Now, your government has doubled-down on Brennan's dark fantasies of insurgent guerrilla forces germinating in different regions of the country, seeking to overthrow the government. The Department of Homeland Security just issued a bulletin alerting the public about a growing risk of attacks by "ideologically-motivated violent extremists" agitated about President Biden's inauguration and "perceived grievances fueled by false narratives." Troops, apparently without credible threat, will reportedly be remaining in Washington DC until the end of March.

Purportedly, the bulletin aims to warn the public about a "heightened threat environment" across the United States "that is likely to persist over the coming weeks." [Read: years]. Who are these people behind the "threat?" Homeland Security has an obligation to name names and identify groups. Give us a "Most Wanted" list of 10 people. We just had 25,000 National Guard troops protecting a few politicians in an empty city during the Biden inauguration. What are we reacting to now?

Pay close attention here:

"DHSFo does not have any information to indicate a specific, credible plot; however, violent riots have continued in recent days and we remain concerned that individuals frustrated with the exercise of governmental authority and the presidential transition, as well as other perceived grievances and ideological causes fueled by false narratives, could continue to mobilize a broad range of ideologically-motivated actors to incite or commit violence." [Emphasis added.]

The Biden administration, its allies, advocates, and television sock puppets are advancing a Constitution-threatening series of initiatives disguised as "safety and security" measures. This, combined with the Big Social Media-backed suppression of free speech, and not-so-subtle "shaming," are all aimed at crushing opposition and stopping people from questioning decisions, motives and authority. The pressure is palpable. Our liberties are in grave danger.


Chris Farrell is a former counterintelligence case officer. For the past 20 years, he has served as the Director of Investigations & Research for Judicial Watch. The views expressed are the author's alone, and not necessarily those of Judicial Watch.


  Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Campus Racial Thought-Crimes - Richard L. Cravatts


​ by Richard L. Cravatts

The consequences of perpetuating minority student victimhood.

As the Maoist-like purges on university campuses continue, yet another faculty member has suffered the consequences of speaking words that may not be spoken and having views that are forbidden at universities where woke students, pretending to be supremely tolerant, indict others with their actual intolerance and join with faculty and administrators in suppressing views that they will not and cannot abide. The latest victim is Charles Negy, an associate professor in the University of Central Florida’s Psychology Department. Negy’s thought-crime? In now-deleted tweets, Negy, who has taught at UCF for 22 years and presumably enjoys the protection of tenure, questioned one of the prevailing absolutes on university campuses: namely, that what is called “systemic racism” permeates and defines American society, and that even on university campuses—those places where the most enlightened and sensitive of all citizens reside—racism still shows itself in a dark undercurrent of bigotry, bias, and repressed hatred for non-white others.

The ubiquity of race obsession on campuses in the post-George Floyd age of Black Lives Matter has shown itself at schools other than UCF, as well. At Princeton University, as one noteworthy example, self-inflicted racial guilt was so prevalent that in September the University’s president, Christopher L. Eisgruber, published a self-flagellating open letter in which he bemoaned the fact that “[r]acism and the damage it does to people of color persist at Princeton” and that “racist assumptions” are “embedded in structures of the University itself.”

Negy rejected this notion and made the mistake of publicly questioning the idea that racism is so prevalent, so unrelenting that it defines all of our interactions and is the reason why, Negy mused, that Asians, as one visible example, thrive academically, economically, and socially while blacks do not.

“If Afr. [sic] Americans as a group,” Negy tweeted, “had the same behavioral profile as Asian Americans (on average, performing the best academically, having the highest income, committing the lowest crime, etc.), would we still be proclaiming ‘systematic racism’ exists?” What Negy suggested, of course, is heresy in the victim-centered culture of academia, where personal responsibility and initiative are discounted, and the oppression of the dominant white culture is assumed to be the principal impediment to the personal achievement of non-white groups.

White people, it is widely assumed, are “privileged” and control the culture and the levers of power; and black people struggle against these cultural and economic defenses at a fundamental disadvantage—all stemming from the country’s original sin of slavery. White people, because they are believed to be essentially racist just by virtue of being white, are implicitly racist, should experience white guilt, and must publicly acknowledge and atone for their racist inclinations. 

Professor Negy challenged that notion, suggesting that decades of affirmative action, race-based preferences in hiring and college admissions, and set asides and other benefits of the welfare state have actually given black people advantages not shared with their white peers, that black people enjoy a type of privilege, too. “Black privilege is real,” Negy wrote in another now-deleted tweet. “Besides affirm. [sic] action, special scholarships and other set asides, being shielded from legitimate criticism is a privilege. But as a group, they’re missing out on much needed feedback.”

This was all too much for the sensitive and tolerant souls on the UCF campus, and a petition, which garnered some 30,000 signatures, was soon circulating in which Negy’s firing was demanded. UCF president Alexander Cartwright, who apparently was eager to satisfy the mob and fire the tenured professor for his offensive thoughts, did recognize that, as a public institution, UCF had to respect and honor Negy’s constitutional right to express any ideas he wished to, admitting in an interview that “The Constitution restricts our ability to fire him or any other University employee for expressing personal opinions about matters of public concern. This is the law.”

Any view which asks black people to be responsible for their own successes and failures, of course, contradicts the prevailing belief that blacks are perennial victims of white oppression and white privilege, that their social and economic failure is the result of systemic racism, and that their options in life are hobbled by the legacy of slavery, living in a racist country, and suffering because of a system of oppression that is both institutionalized and designed to maintain the status quo in which a white society benefits from and creates racial inequity. Negy challenged that orthodoxy.

“The first tweet was a sincere question,” he explained in responding to the criticisms of the original tweet. “When or how will we know when the U.S. has eradicated ‘systemic racism?’ What is the marker we will use for declaring systemic racism no longer exists?” 

In defending the controversial comment about black privilege, Negy modified his language, but the sentiment was the same. “Perhaps I should not have used the word ‘privilege,’” he admitted. “I could have said there are advantages to being a minority in the U.S. But we’d simply be playing a game of words. The point is still the same, there are benefits/advantages/privileges to being black in the U.S..”  

Negy suggested that the privilege he ascribes to blacks is different than the one commonly thought to be enjoyed by whites, that is, that white people have the privilege of power and being the dominant segment of American society, and thus retain power and control. Black privilege, Negy thinks, is a different type of advantage—the advantage inherent in the way that blacks are insulated from criticism and, as self-defined victims, do not have to take responsibility for their decisions and personal behavior. “The fact that people feel the need to protect African Americans from scrutiny and will vilify anyone who does–that is a privilege,” Negy observed. “All groups are of equal value and worth. African Americans are our equals. This country belongs to them as much as it does to any other group. But they are not above scrutiny.”

Negy’s experience—and the veritable inquisition he has endured as the administration marshaled considerable resources(including a 244-page investigative report) to force his resignation or build a case for his dismissal—is not, of course, unique, particularly in the Black Lives Matter era. At Harvard University, for example, one of the recent faculty targets was David Kane, Preceptor in Statistical Methods and Mathematics in the university’s Department of Government, who was the subject of condemnation for questioning some of the universally-accepted notions about race when some of his assiduous students uncovered racist posts he had allegedly written on his website EphBlog. over the course of several years under the pseudonym “David Dudley Field ’25.” 

One of Kane’s posts noted that Williams alum Duncan Robinson (Kane is a 1988 graduate of Williams College) was a high-ranking NBA player this season. “Is the NBA prejudiced against white players?” it asked. “Would Robinson have been undrafted if he were Black?,” suggesting the existence of “Black Supremacy” in the NBA, echoing Negy’s controversial notion of “black privilege.”

Another of Kane’s posts suggested that, due to race preferences, over 90 percent of Black students at Williams College would not have been admitted if it were not for their “Black’ness” [sic], and question why, while Williams College publicly condemned a white supremacist group, the college did not similarly condemn the Black Lives Matter movement and Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel.

A second government professor at Harvard, Diana J. Schaub, also became a target for her alleged racism in suggesting that black people were responsible for some of the social and economic conditions in which they find themselves. Schaub, a visiting professor who was teaching a course at Harvard on African American political thought, is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and has actually served as a visiting professor at Harvard before.     

In a 2010 article in National Affairs, “America at the Bat,” as one example of what students found objectionable, Schaub noted that “The trend [of the absence of blacks in baseball] has been noted, lamented in some quarters, but nowhere adequately explained. My strong hunch is that the declining interest and involvement in baseball is a consequence of the absence of fathers in the black community.” 

In a 2000 article in The National Interest, Schaub observed, “I suspect that the contemporary phenomenon of angry middle-class blacks derives in substantial part from the erosion of both Bible-based faith and faith in Progress. Charitable and hardy souls have been replaced by suspicious and fragile selves, hypersensitized to perceived slights and perpetually aggrieved.”

And in a 2010 article in the Baltimore Sun that tracked reasons behind Baltimore’s population loss, Schaub suggested that, “The decline of marriage, particularly among African-Americans, is all too familiar. Not as well-known is that Maryland has a very high abortion rate (third highest among the states in 2005 . . .). The breakdown by jurisdiction reveals that Baltimore City is driving those deadly numbers, and also that the abortion rate among African-American women is at least triple the white rate.”

The opinions—and even the facts—presented in these articles apparently were too much for some Harvard students, including a Crimson editor majoring in government who wrote that Schaub’s articles are, “if not outright bigoted, ignorant, and deeply concerning.” Kane and Negy, too, articulated opinions which caused great discomfort for many who want to reveal endemic racism where it may or may not even exist, primarily because academia is in the thrall of diversity and inclusion and is more committed to perpetuating the victimhood of minority students than it is for dealing with facts, statistics, and opposing views about personal responsibility and academic performance. Those moral heretics who dare to express alternate, even factual, views about race are summarily censured, maligned as racists, and sometimes even purged from the campus community.

In writing about the Kane situation, for example, the censorious Editorial Board of the Harvard Crimson actually called for the professor’s firing. “The posts are unacceptable,” the editorial said. “Our issue with them goes beyond mere differences in political opinion . . . [and] if the allegations that the posts authored by “Field” were written by Kane are true, the suggestion that 90 percent of Black students at Williams don’t belong there and the defense of literal Nazism have irreparably damaged Kane’s ability to serve as an instructor . . . He simply cannot serve as an effective preceptor — certainly not to the Black students whose belonging at higher education institutions (and evidently in this country) he allegedly challenges, but also not to anyone with a basic intolerance for bigotry. In short, David Kane, assuming the allegations are true, must be fired.”

In June, UCF students and alumni held a protest against Negy while holding signs that read: “If UCF Keeps Racist Teachers, Then UCF=Racist,” “UCF Fire Negy. He is leaving a negative impact on your institution,” and “Don’t Let Racists Teach.” The message here was clear: not that the protestors and professor could engage in debate and dialogue about the complex issue of race, but that self-appointed guardians of the truth had decided that the professor’s views were fundamentally racist and worthless, and that the only acceptable response was his termination.

The efforts to rectify racial injustice have included such efforts as affirmative action in college admissions, robust and obsessive diversity and inclusion initiatives at universities, and the creation of programs to directly ameliorate purported racism. These endeavors are seen as reasonable and justifiable reactions to lingering racism in American society and are ostensibly designed to give substantive advantages to blacks to compensate for their historic marginalization.

As demonstrated quite saliently by the experience of these professors, however, anyone who questions either the utility or even the moral, legal, and ethical justification by which these efforts are maintained can expect to be denounced as a racist—and especially now as the country is experiencing paroxysms of racial reckoning and atonement. To question the hypocrisy and  fairness of affirmative action, for example, is to step on moral landmines. And to claim, as professor Negy did, that, despite the normal assertions about America’s endemic racism, there is actually something one could consider the be “black privilege” is the type of radical notion that can cause someone to be subject to condemnation and cancellation, just as he has experienced.

The frequency with which students, faculty, and administrators have moved to suppress, and punish, viewpoints about race should be alarming, particularly in the time since campuses were thrown into a race frenzy in the wake of the killings of black victims by police last spring. But in their zeal to create campuses they believe to be free of bias and hatred, and which serve as sanctuaries—safe spaces—for marginalized individuals, the campus censors have shut off intellectual engagement and often moved to suppress dissenting thought. 

This poses a grave threat to academia because, as John Stuart Mill astutely observed in On Liberty, “to refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty. All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility,” something clearly lacking on the part of those on campus who cannot and will not abide opposing thought.


Richard L. Cravatts, Ph.D., is a Freedom Center Journalism Fellow in Academic Free Speech, President Emeritus of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, and author of Dispatches From the Campus War Against Israel and Jews.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Rasha Mubarak’s Podcast: Honor Terrorists, Oppose Israel’s Existence - Joe Kaufman


​ by Joe Kaufman

How the extremism of Rashida Tlaib's Finance Director is ignored by Tlaib - and the Democratic Party.



Rasha Mubarak, the Finance Director for US Representative Rashida Tlaib, recently began hosting a podcast show, where she interviews guests, who, like her, have animosity towards Israel. Mubarak’s first show featured a woman (along with Mubarak) mourning the death of her cousin, a Palestinian car-ramming terrorist. Another included a gay Muslim activist lamenting the fact that there are people permitting the existence of Israel, unchallenged by the host. Tlaib seems to have a similar sentiment, so it is logical that she would condone her staffer’s extremist activity. Yet, the entire Democratic Party appears to be silent about Mubarak. Why?

The first episode of Mubarak’s show, Unbought Power, released in December, had her interviewing lawyer and activist Noura Erakat, the niece of recently deceased PLO Secretary General Saeb Erekat. During the show, Erakat and Mubarak spent much time mourning and honoring Erakat’s late cousin, Ahmed Erekat, who was shot and killed after attempting to run over an Israeli border officer, at a checkpoint east of Jerusalem. Erakat, scrambling for excuses, blamed her cousin’s attempted murder of the officer on the fact that he was driving “a Korean car.” She further said that the video of the incident may have been “doctored” by Israelis.

Another episode, also released last month, featured gay activist Samer Owaida, who describes himself as a “hardline anti-Zionist” and who goes by the nickname “Samer the Sodomite.” During the show, Owaida repeatedly voiced his opposition to Israel’s existence, which Mubarak happily allowed. He distressingly stated, “It’s the 70-something year occupation of Palestine by Israeli settlers, and we have only gotten to this point by the collective action of the rest of the world, so for Israel to continue existing, people are permitting it.” Ironically, Israel is the only safe place in the area for an openly gay male like Owaida to live, as his brethren would execute him.

The most recent episode featured former Florida State Senator Dwight Bullard, who discussed a highly controversial trip he took, in May 2016, to the West Bank. Bullard laughed, when he told Mubarak of the criticism he received by those saying “I was over there trying to collaborate with terrorists.” Yet, on his trip, Bullard was accompanied by Mahmoud Jiddah, an ex-member of the PFLP terrorist group, who spent 17 years in an Israeli prison for planting bombs. Bullard was, as well, photographed speaking with Ahmad Abuznaid, a founder of Dream Defenders, the sponsor of the trip, who has openly praised PFLP terrorists, including plane hijacker Leila Khaled.

These issues go along with Mubarak’s past history of extreme hatred of the Jewish state. For nearly a decade, Mubarak has been pushing the notion that Israel has no right to self-defense, to the point of attacking those, who believe otherwise, in her social media. Mubarak has posted photos of Hamas celebrations, and she has been involved with groups linked to Hamas. She has organized anti-Israel events that have devolved into base anti-Semitism, and she personally ridiculed Orthodox Jews, who because of rising tensions in the Middle East, asked the Israeli government for “beard-friendly gas masks,” a matter that our own US military has dealt with.

Probably none of this – the content of Mubarak’s show nor her bigoted history – fazes Congresswoman Tlaib, who has also appeared as a guest on Unbought Power and who has her own history of anti-Israel hate. In fact, just this month, Tlaib was quoted in the media calling Israel a “racist state.” But what are we to make of the mostly muted response about Mubarak from the Democratic Party, a party that still contains at least some who claim to stand by Israel? Apart from canceling one Florida event, this past October, due to Mubarak’s participation, the party has largely ignored her actions.

While Mubarak is Finance Director for Congresswoman Tlaib, she also holds the position of National Committeewoman of the Florida Young Democrats (FYD), a group that has gone out of its way to defend her. As well, she is a member of the Orlando, Florida Committee on Multicultural Affairs. She was appointed to the position by Orlando Democrat Mayor Buddy Dyer, but he has done nothing to remove or rebuke her.

Rasha Mubarak has a dangerous obsession with the state of Israel. It is seen in her radical history as well as her new show, Unbought Power, where her guests, without repercussion, honor terrorists and openly oppose the Jewish state’s existence. As long as Mubarak holds a position within the Democratic Party, the party cannot say that it is a body that stands against hatred and extremism. Indeed, when the party embraces Mubarak, it is embracing terror and bigotry.

Beila Rabinowitz, Director of Militant Islam Monitor, contributed to this report.


Joe Kaufman  is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center; a writer for the Counter-Islamist Grid, a project of the Middle East Forum; and the Chairman of the Joe Kaufman Security Initiative. He was the 2014, 2016 and 2018 Republican Nominee for U.S. House of Representatives (Florida-CD23).


 Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

When Resistance Became Sedition and Sedition Became Resistance - Daniel Greenfield


​ by Daniel Greenfield

Republicans failed to punish Obama’s national security abuses. Biden’s abuses will be worse.


In 2008, “dissent” went from being the “highest form of patriotism”, a quote by Communist revisionist historian Howard Zinn that Democrats falsely attributed to Thomas Jefferson, to treason when George W. Bush made way for Barack H. Obama. The old bumper stickers about the patriotic value of dissent were swiftly replaced with others touting the value of change.

In 2020, resistance just as quickly turned into sedition once the political tables were turned.

In one month, questioning a presidential election went from a commonplace proposition to a shocking attack on our democracy. And we all know that if President Trump had been inaugurated for a second term, there would be no censorship or censure of the Democrat politicians and pundits claiming that he was only reelected because of Russia or UFOs.

Nor would we be hearing any talk of “sedition” and “insurrection” as if they were bad things.

When November was just decorating the flagstones of D.C. with faded leaves, the Democrat cliques inside federal agencies were still touting their skill at undermining the White House in chats with reporters at bars where drinks cost more than most Americans earn in a day.

These members of the “resistance” had spent four years undermining elected officials while falsely claiming that they were entitled to do it because the 2016 election had been illegitimate.

Government officials boasted anonymously of undermining President Trump, members of Congress and their staffers helped protesters get inside to disrupt hearings, rioters who assaulted police officers and attacked federal buildings were bailed out by Democrat officials and celebrities who enlisted Silicon Valley and major corporations to support the riots.

By the time November was done, resistance had been rebranded as “sedition”. Storming Capitol Hill went from a passionate endeavor by Democrat activists protesting the Kavanaugh nomination, the environment, or some other lefty cause, to the single worst event since 9/11.

Black Lives Matter riots had besieged the White House and set fire to its guardhouse, while still being defended by Democrats and the media as peaceful protesters. The media agonized over photos of federal agents protecting the Lincoln Memorial as a sign of incipient fascism. Less than a year later, 25,000 troops occupying D.C. like Baghdad are being cheered by the media.

The difference between resistance and sedition, between protests and insurrections, is who’s in charge. Democrats resist Republican elected officials. Republicans however commit sedition against Democrat elected officials. Democrats protest, Republicans riot. These aren’t distinctions in law. The only real distinction is who’s in power and who’s on the barricades.

Political hypocrisy isn’t a new phenomenon, but Democrats weaponizing the national security state to suppress the political opposition over the same behavior they engage in is a serious threat to the survival of the United States as anything other than a banana republic in a civil war.

The Democrats fired the first shot when the Obama administration used the national security system to target members of Congress during its time in office and then, in an election year, went after President Trump’s associates based on Hillary Clinton’s opposition research.

Instead of being held accountable for abusing national security to target their political opponents, Democrats, their media, and their allies in the system doubled down with fake investigations of the same worthless allegations that they never managed to substantiate.

After four years of falsely claiming that President Trump was a Russian agent and that the 2016 election had somehow been rigged with Facebook ads in an event that was worse than 9/11, the Democrats have pivoted to claiming that questioning the 2020 election is worse than 9/11.

Now the old abuse of the national security state under the guise of hunting down the evidence that Republicans had rigged the 2016 election has turned into abusing the national security state to punish Republicans for suggesting that the Democrats had rigged the 2020 election.

The only consistent thing here is the Democrat abuse of national security to target their political opponents while magically transforming election skepticism from the highest form of patriotism to sedition, and riots from a moral crusade into a major threat because they are now in power.

The failure to have any kind of reckoning with the Obama administration’s national security abuses has taken us to a new era of national security abuses by the Biden administration.

Democrat officials and their media allies are already touting a new campaign against “domestic extremism”. And the same people who labeled John McCain and Mitt Romney “extremists” when they were running against their boss will get to define who the “extremists” are. Black Lives Matter, a hate group that injured hundreds of police officers and caused $2 billion in damage while taking its motto from a domestic terrorist wanted by the FBI won’t make the list.

The abuse of national security to target the political opposition isn’t a new phenomenon. The Clinton administration insisted that the real threat to America was coming from militias even while Al Qaeda was prepping the attacks that would kill nearly 3,000 people on September 11.

Democrats repeatedly claimed that the Bush Administration’s campaign against terrorists was punishing political dissent, but despite these false claims, Bush’s counter-terrorism never even came close to eavesdropping on, investigating, or shutting down the political opposition.

That didn’t stop Democrats from repeatedly invoking the Gestapo and the Stasi when attacking the Patriot Act, Ashcroft, and Gonzalez. It also didn’t stop them from abusing the Patriot Act and the national security system built to fight Communists and Islamic terrorists to target members of Congress and the political opposition including President Trump and his associates.

Democrats and the media quickly got back to comparing President Trump to Hitler and accusing him of fascism, yet his administration never did to Biden what Obama had done to Trump. The Trump administration didn’t eavesdrop on Biden associates under the guise of national security. The damaging material about Hunter Biden and his father’s ties to China came out of a laptop shop in Vermont, not from the synthesis of political operatives and national security personnel which had exploited the Steele Dossier’s false claims about Trump and Russian prostitutes.

And the same alliance between Democrat political operatives, the media, and Silicon Valley that had spread these false allegations far and wide, acted to suppress news stories about Hunter Biden on the false and familiar grounds that they represented Russian disinformation.

The suppression of the Hunter Biden story may be the last hurrah for Russian disinformation.

Biden is moving to appease Russia and that means the Democrats and the media will spend a lot less time justifying their abuses of national security by connecting Republicans to Russia. It would be awkward for Biden and Putin to hug one day after our government media got through with another concocted story justifying a crackdown on conservatives by exploiting Russia.

The Russia hoax generated a national security angle that justified abusing the broad discretion meant for chasing spies and terrorists to instead chase conservatives and Republicans. The Capitol riot provided a new pretext that has allowed the Democrats to dispense with Russia while labeling membership in the political opposition as evidence of a national security threat.

Anyone who questioned Biden’s election can be accused of “incitement”, “sedition”, and “insurrection” without Democrats and their media having to find Russia on a map.

These grotesque abuses of national security are being carried out by the same Democrats who had been neck deep in what they’ve now defined as incitement, sedition, and insurrection. Yesterday’s seditionists now fantasize, in their own words, about using the government they have seized to “investigate”, “suppress”, and “deprogram” the political opposition.

The Republican governing class has failed to come to terms with the reality that its Democrat counterparts operate by a very different definition of law and government than they do. The Democrats don’t simply disregard the Constitution, as they have ever since Woodrow Wilson, but they regard their own power as legitimate and the power of Republicans as illegitimate.

The Democrats are hypocrites only in that they don’t openly state their central principle, but they are remarkably consistent in its application by seeking to dismantle any part of government or society that aids Republicans while building up the power of any part of it that serves them.

Republicans take a legal or philosophical perspective on everything while Democrats have an expedient activist take on it. Republicans turn to the law or tradition, while Democrats decide whether the Filibuster, the Electoral College, the institution of marriage, the existence of white people, and the biological reality of women serves their purposes or ought to be eliminated.

That’s Obama’s thesis about the right side of history in a brutal nutshell.

Democrats approach politics from the simple and consistent perspective that any office currently held by a Republican is illegitimate and any held by a Democrat is sacrosanct. The reasons for this, whether it’s the Russians or white supremacy, are just a propaganda detail. That’s why Democrats “resist” while Republicans commit “sedition”. The difference between resistance and sedition is the legitimacy of the movement and the legitimacy of those in power.

Their approach to the national security state is motivated by that same understanding that its purpose is to promote “resistance” to Republicans and the suppression of Republican “sedition”.

When Republicans failed to carry out a meaningful reckoning of Obama’s national security abuses they didn’t just allow an injustice to go unpunished, but they ensured a much worse repetition by emboldened Democrats who committed the worst political abuse of the national security system that had been possible until then and got away with it. That’s the next step.

The Biden administration is moving to criminalize the political opposition, to investigate and dismantle it using all of the tools at its disposal. That is the only thing Republicans can expect. It’s exactly what they should have been expecting all along. Obama’s abuses of the national security state were not an outlier. They are the new normal. And they’re only going to get worse.

Republicans failed to hold the Democrats accountable when they were in power. They will now have to learn how to hold them accountable when they’re out of power, not with hearings or investigations, but by showing who the oppressors and the oppressed in the system really are.


Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.  


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Value-Laden Language of the Left - Sheldon Karasik


​ by Sheldon Karasik

Control over language easily morphs into control over thoughts and ideas.

As Nietzsche presciently observed over a hundred years ago: "All I need is a sheet of paper and something to write with, and then I can turn the world upside-down."

Political nomenclature has always tended to be value-laden.  Start with the watershed movement known as "the Enlightenment."  The term itself means coming into the light — i.e., gaining information and knowledge and thus advancing, first intellectually but not only that way.  It also involves exercising one's intellectual power to better understand the world, to educate oneself and, on a macrocosmic level, help engender socio-political advancement through the use of scientific scrutiny.  In other words, becoming enlightened is emerging from Plato's cave.

When the Enlightenment began in the eighteenth century, the shadows in the cave mistaken for reality were religious constructs and belief systems.  Like everything else, they too must be subjected to intellectual rigor.  As Kant noted in his Critique of Pure Reason, everything, including religion, must be analyzed through scientific and rational analysis.  Whatever fails the rigorous test of intellectual scrutiny, including religion, must be cast aside as an anachronism, or worse. 

The term "enlightenment" is thus charged with an intellectual force.  Who indeed doesn't want to be enlightened?  What person or what movement wants to be considered "ignorant," the opposite of "enlightened"?

The Enlightenment arose as a reaction to and intellectual rebellion against traditional religion in the West.  For centuries leading up the Enlightenment, Jewish and Cristian principles were founded on the natural law, a set of unchanging moral precepts that derive from God and are thus infused with unquestionable authority.  The term "natural law" is also value-laden.  It conveys the idea that anything opposed to it is abnormal, aberrant, and contrary to nature, which is the natural order created by divine providence.

But the Enlightenment thinkers in the eighteenth century argued that if the natural law cannot pass scientific muster, it is in fact artificial, not natural.  Natural is that which makes sense, that which can be intellectually justified.  Being enlightened is the act of subjecting the so-called natural law to intellectual rigor, identifying its shortcomings, and emerging from the cave.  In that way, it co-opted, without saying so, the term "natural."  It became that which makes sense, first as a scientific precept, then an intellectual one, and finally as a moral one.

If we fast-forward roughly two hundred fifty years, we find a modern equivalent of the term enlightenment in the politically charged word "progressive."  Like becoming enlightened, being progressive means advancing, moving forward.  When the progressive movement started in the United States in the late nineteenth century, it engendered a period of political activism and social reform leading to the passage of many salutary changes in the way business and society operated.  But the term has a life much beyond that historical period.  And as it continued to be applied to other realms, the value-laden nature of the term came in handy.

Now in particular, as the left continues to usurp the political narrative and silence alternative voices, it is felicitous to observe how progressive policies apply with God-like authority to sexuality and other realms.  First, for example, the term "sexual preference" has been erased.  Indeed, at her Senate confirmation hearing, our newest (at least in the short term) Supreme Court justice quickly apologized for daring to even use the term.  The woke, and thus only acceptable, phrase is "sexual orientation."  That is because, to assume that one chooses his sexual identity is to presuppose that the person actually has a choice in the matter.  Having a choice means accepting responsibility for how that choice is exercised.

But wait a second.  Wasn't the whole swing to scientific rationalism beginning with the Enlightenment all about rejection of the natural law?  Wasn't it about making one's own choices, and thus being one's own judge of moral correctness?  Wasn't it ultimately about moral relativism?  If so, why now pass the buck to God, or at least nature, to explain what Jewish and Christian principles always viewed as aberrant sexual behavior?  Do we detect at least an inkling of guilt underpinning the left's obsessive insistence on the use of that term?

Control over language easily morphs into control over thoughts and ideas.  Just think: despite the scientific evidence to the contrary, the obligatory use of the term sexual orientation contains within itself an explanation of why one is attracted to a particular sex.

Take another example.  What about the terms pro-life and pro-choice?  While both are value-laden, at least pro-life accurately describes what its proponents believe.  Were that same precision applied to the opposite term, the movement would be called pro-death.  That doesn't sell papers.  Instead, therefore, they fall back on the Enlightenment approach.  The individual becomes the moral arbiter.  He — here, she — makes the "choice" and, since it is hers to make under an enlightened view of the world, it carries with it no moral opprobrium.  And just to make sure of that, a value-laden term is applied to the murderous act.  No, wait, I'm wrong; it is nothing even close to that.  That world-famous physician/theologian/scientist, Justice Harry Blackmun, proved that life doesn't begin during the first trimester.

All of these seemingly definitional acts of linguistic choice are really attempts at moral persuasion.  And they can become truly dangerous when they cancel any effort to reset, any attempt to question the validity of what the operative nomenclature signifies.  But then again, returning to the prescient German philosopher, God is dead, so anything goes.


Sheldon Karasik  


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter